If the US Congress were to serve as the CFO of a major corporation . . .

[Bateluer]

CFO being Chief Financial Officer. How long would they last in that capacity? It seems like they constantly rob Peter to pay Paul. The Social Security fund has been raided dozens of times since its creation by both parties to pay for a range of projects, the Food Stamp fund was just raided to cover bailouts for teachers, the Auto Industry bailouts were borrowed/printed, etc.

This type of financial management may get an organization through a very short term problem, but its not sustainable. There's only so long I, as a private citizen, can shift credit card balances from card to card to card to avoid paying them off, eventually that bill is going to come due.

To my original question, I'd have to say it'd be a matter of hours before the board fired the CFO . . .but, the CFO would likely get a very lucrative severance package.

 

[khon]

It would be nice to think that companies are somehow better than this, but the current crisis has shown us that it's just not the case. Virtually every bank in the US is bankrupt, and kept afloat only by the government. Same goes for the big automakers, and many others.

Furthermore the boards of many of these companies are ripe with nepotism, so the oversight there're supposed to provide is badly impared.

 

[Bateluer]

It would be nice to think that companies are somehow better than this, but the current crisis has shown us that it's just not the case. Virtually every bank in the US is bankrupt, and kept afloat only by the government.

Most of the regional and community banks were perfectly fine, and were forced by Bernanke to take the bailout money when they didn't need it, and paid it back once they were allowed to, don't forget that.

Your main point seems to be 'Too big to fail = too big to exist', and one I agree with.

 

[Craig234]

If the board of a major corporation served as Congress...

People who compare the two are ignorant about government, IMO.

And they voted mostly for our 'first CEO/MBA President, George W. Bush'.

That went well.

 

[Bateluer]

And they voted mostly for our 'first CEO/MBA President, George W. Bush'.

That went well.

Yes, because everything bad with the US economy is directly GWB's fault. Nevermind 5 decades of Congressional stupidity.

 

[BladeVenom]

Does Herbert Kohl count?

 

[Craig234]

Yes, because everything bad with the US economy is directly GWB's fault. Nevermind 5 decades of Congressional stupidity.

Wow, you can't tell my using an example, from the statement not made that George Bush is behind all the bad government? That's bad logic even for the worst people here.

 

[marincounty]

Well the first thing they would have to do would be for the boards to vote these new CFOs huge salaries, stock options and golden parachutes, right? Because we have to pay them that much to retain the top talent. And it would all be ok because the boards vote on this and thus the shareholders will is done. /s

 

[waggy]

If the board of a major corporation served as Congress...

People who compare the two are ignorant about government, IMO.

And they voted mostly for our 'first CEO/MBA President, George W. Bush'.

That went well.

i thought Bush was considered the dumbest president in history. yet you say that he was the first ceo/MBA president?

 

[Craig234]

i thought Bush was considered the dumbest president in history. yet you say that he was the first ceo/MBA president?

His supporters told us that he was going to be *great* for the economy because he was the first 'CEO president' or 'MBA president'. I disagreed.

That's my point, that the 'CEO president' idea idea is highly overrated.

A CEO President who represents the interests of the rich isn't good for America.